tv [untitled] December 9, 2011 6:00am-6:30am PST
. we wanted to point out in light of the neck steps, we are excepting comments through december. we have e-mail and web sites for comments. we also have other projects that are ongoing in this area. for example, we have 8 transit grant that is moving ahead with implementation. this slide shows, one of improvement that was recently opened, not a new crosswalk across ocean avenue where it connects the new west side walkway with the park and the north side of ocean. bart is working and we're
working closely with them on the project. this will provide a further link from the west side of the walkway over to our boarding area. finally, we are eager to participate with the authority in their upcoming circulation study which can tackle some issues which did not give fully resolved such as issues related to the freeway reconfigure rations. i would be happy to answer any further questions. thank you. >> thank you. so, the capacity study did not delve into the issues as well as the freeway interchange issues or the exchange for drivers getting on the freeway. will there be any mention of that in the study? >> those are treated.
they have recommended providing a drop area that is basically taking the existing northbound on ramp from geneva and splitting it so that a portion would go right next to the station. >> this is more long term? >> yes, long term. >> in terms of the drop of sides, could one of the drop off ramps be a way to alleviate the congestion? we do have on ramps on ocean avenue as well that could alleviate some of the attention. is that being discussed?
>> that is true. there are some that are duplicated. >> that is actually the other subject we would like to explore in more detail in the new circulation steady. we would like to use the grand we of just received from the california department of transportation. this is the third action item. the idea is that there might be
an over abundance of freeway access. there is a ramp right next to the station that drops you off at 280. if we could close off the ramp next to the station from geneva avenue, that could become real estate that you could use. maybe we could put more loading there. that could mitigate some of the conflict that we have going on. people who are trying to get on the freeway right now because they're coming right across the station and their conflicting with those that are dropping off passengers. that is one of the real focus is that we would like to do as a future step. >> thank you.
part of the issue of congestion or of usage by transit riders is a lot of people in the southern part of my district will come to the park from mission street south of geneva. there are plans about going to daly city which is actually closer. what are the plans right now in place and what have been implemented to connect people in the southern part of san francisco? >> there is a pilot to work in this and we have been working with bart on a daily city access study which is looking at the longer term potentials. also, that same study is looking at extending the and line too
part. that would potentially be long- range options. >> so, how far away from that? >> i'm afraid i don't know the time frame but i can check into that and get back to you. i am pretty sure it is short- term, a few months. any other questions? if there's any member of the public that like to speak, can you please come forward? >> this project is so important
that it impacts many areas. this gentleman calls himself a senior planner. i don't know how much has been used for the engineering. if we have expended more than to let a thousand dollars for this project, then we should have someone explain to us as best they can without going around and around and making it so convoluted, what exactly is happening over here.
my concern is that we have spent million dollars on the light rail and it ends up in the middle of nowhere. we should look at connecting the third street light rail from there to balboa park. we should look at it. now, i was looking at the other materials and they are talking about expanding another $345,000 doing this thing and the other thing. you should have a task force of citizens. they would do a better job.
there was discussion about the station. there was a suggestion that some money should be expended to do some did vacation and address a few other things for the benefit of the constituents and one thing led to another and we reached this point. this presentation was very very boring. this is not take us to a better place, this takes us about 50 steps backwards. we need to get those people that we pay a lot of money and give us a very lucid presentation so
that we want to know in the short-term, and the next two or three years, what exactly will be done too balboa and that whole area. everything will go haywire. thank you. >> think you. is there any other member of the public that would like to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed. what i would say about this item is that i do wonder whether or not this item really is ready for prime time. i think you raised a number of questions and i am not sure if the response, and these from listing to what was said to me, adequately addresses your concerns. do you have any concerns about what the want to move forward or should we bring it back? >> well, this is a draft stage of the plan. the final version will be completed in early next year.
i do believe that i will have an off line conversation with mr. markowitz and the mta as i have been doing. >> i think that we should forward this, that this is item 6. >> item 6, we have not discussed this. i do believe it would help to enable the things we want to be able to do in this area. >> if i can add, i think this is an area that the park station really does need improvement. to the extent that the staff can work too tight what it is, the special agents would be done for
the study and that would be helpful. dust the expectations would be done and that would help. >> i am all for moving this forward, i just don't know that the level of responsiveness is where it needs to be. if we have anything else to add? >> just to clarify, the action items to the information, this is for a request and then there is another action item that the authority has for an appropriation to serve as a local match for that grant that i referred to that we receive from caltrans. we did apply for the grant and we got the good news earlier this fall. we would like to use the money for two reasons. one, perhaps to address the
comments before. we would like to fund staffing for a new citizen advisory committee to be created for balboa park. we understand that the supervisors are planning to have an action to create this for balboa park. this funding we have received, we would like to make available to do this staffing. if they provide funding, they will be able to staff this. the thought is that it would be a body that meets quarterly for two years and this would cover any transportation topics that the body would be interested in bringing up. the expectation is that the san francisco planning department would address questions. the second thing is the circulation steady that i talked about briefly, the idea of potentially closing off freeway ramps and what that does too
circulation in the area. we would like to spend some of the funds from the grant and the appropriations for that third action item. >> part of the effort i have been working on with constituents in my district and that also have joint districts and looking at creation of the citizens advisory committee that could help to provide guidance for all of the departments that interface with balboa park. it is our intention that this committee would be able to be a go-between to get input and to make sure that we are hitting our milestones and the changes that we want to see in the balboa station area. that is the idea behind it. i am fully supportive of moving
these items forward so that we can continue with that work. >> we called items five and six together. we have heard the presentation. is there any motion with respect -- do we need to do anything else with item six in terms of staff presentation? >> we have a short presentation on the mta allocation but i can summarize it for you. there is a request of about 335,000 funds from the sf mta to take us through their short-term improvements, primarily the passenger amenities. to take them to about 35% designed. the intent is to prepare them for the grant proposal.
>> i'm fully supportive of this work. this is needed. the canopies are something that are critical. we have these very small shelters that do not provide enough space for all of the people that we are around their. hundreds of people in a few hours' time are waiting for buses. we're waiting for these improvements going forward and we would like to have your support. >> that is a motion. this has been seconded. colleagues, can we take that without objection? without objection. the item passes. you can now call item number 7. >> item 7 is the allocation of
$124,758 in proposition k funds with conditions to the department of the environment for one project and 107 $9,000 in proposition k funds to the department of public works for the project. >> good morning, commissioners. this item begins on page 91 of your packet. there is also an enclosure that in companies this allocation request that includes the grand abdication forms from the various departments. on page 97 is a summary of the applications received and this highlights the leveraging is something to which were in the plan as well as the actual leveraging assumptions and the
request. following that attachment is a summary of the application as well as our recommendations for approval. i will give you a brief overview of a few of these allocation requests and dive into a bit more details. the first allocation is the procurement which will replace 20 bands which were prepared using proposition k funds. these accommodate 12 passengers and up to three wheelchair's and several large size stands. the vehicles will be in service by the fall of 2012. the next request is a request from the department of public works to implement a portion of the 24th street and mission plaza and attention improvements project.
this is to construct it on the southwest corner which is part of a larger project that has received about $2 million in a regional grant. proposition k has funded the design portion. this will be implemented next year into 2013 with construction. this can implement this part of that project which allows for early implementation and also savings. the next project is the bicycle lanes project. the project would install 1 mile of the bus ways.
the mta will restore approximately 42 spaces on marine street dutch marin st. east of evans. -- of 42 spaces on that marin st. east evans. the net result is a loss of parking spaces and these have been approved in october. the funds will leverage a grant that has a march expiration date. if there are any weather delays that cost delays to the project, and this would be the element installed at a later date to make sure that that expiration date is met. there is some conceptual work
that is going on at to the intersection. these conversations are happening between the mta, the planning department, the mayor's office, the ports. we understand that the discussions would be complete by the end of this calendar year and they will not affect this project's implementation, delivery, or cost. here is a schematic that shows the existing use of this street and the proposed use of the street with parking removal. the next project is the woods division lift or replacement project. this is a facility that is responsible for storing, fueling, dispatching the motor coaches and this will replace 13 of the in the ground lists and the heavy and light maintenance shops and those that lift these
up depending on the coaches. all of these are at the end of their useful life and the escalating licenses associated. this project has a long history. this was originally funded back in 2002. this was a priority project under the facility preservation and improvement program. the project has experienced delays and management changes including whether this should be and in the ground list or a portable list. most recently, the operation and maintenance division has featured this scope of work. this request has an associated amendment. this is to make approximately
1.7 million remaining balance of funds available to the project. we are eager to close out the grants that are currently open and this represents the last of the facility grants. >> is there a maintenance plan that will be in place? in the past, that has been an issue and i want to make sure that that is making an investment that will be addressed. >> i don't know how this plan will be specifically addressed as part of the larger plan. i know that this will address a majority of the lists at this facility but for additional information i would prefer to the mta staff. >> maybethe next project i willo is the implementation project. mta is requesting over $2.3
million to request traffic devices throughout the city. approximately 1.8 million is being requested for planning implementation. this is to implement 13 projects that have been completed primarily using croprop k funds. if you refer to 100 feet in your package, this gives you a list of the projects. 300,000 is being requested for site-specific project implementation. these are elements of the traffic-, and measures that have not been in including in a planning project. however, they have been evaluated in to the program, and they are identified in page 55 of the enclosure of the packet. the enclosure includes over 20 locations that have been prioritized in order and scoring
order and the scoring methodology is shown on the next page of the enclosure. page 55 and page 66 gives more information on the site-specific information. we will implement measures as identified, and then go down the list for the available funds and implement as many measures as possible. the early implementation, these are funds that are identified in the five-year prioritization program to implement projects from traffic, and plans that are currently under way. mta is working on them now. on page 123 of your packet there
is an outline of the map of the traffic an calming plans that are completed and under way. there is an amendment requested this request to make the funds available to site-specific implementation. they are currently four planning-focus the implementation. this is part of the $1.8 million request. by way of background of the traffic-bombing program, this is a very labor-intensive program. -- traffic clamialming programs, this is a very labor-intensive program. buy programs became full-speed ahead, so the traffic combinalm
projects have lagged behind. we estimate the projects will need to schedule under the allocation request of july, 2012. this is for the most recent implementation pending from march 2010. >> on page 108 and 109 of our packet, is that the list of items that will be funded? >> correct. that is the portion of the funding request from plan implementation. >> there are some districts that are not here that are left out, and at some districts are getting a look at the same amount. i am wondering if you can explain why this came about.
i know this is 2, 3, 4. i am wondering if you can say something about that. to go as far as the implementation is selected, i know the projects are implemented in phases, but i will refer to mta staff. >> i know in district 9 and 8, one of the areas we have been focused on is san jose avenue and the exit from the freeway, and we have been talking about them for a very long time. i am wondering if we could hear from mta on that. >> good morning, commissioners. the project's you see listed are related to completed area-wide projects. it is the nature of the work. and we do it by the severity of the issues we're dealing with. some districts either nation
have a lot more traffic calming than others. some districts have more. >> is there an opportunity for any supervisor as this item moves forward to give you additional suggestion in terms of area where there is need for traffic calming efforts? >> certainly. we have an application process they can follow. supervisor avalos: great. to the extent there are other items and three and four that are not here, it would be good and to have the supervisors have the opportunity to add this in. supervisor chiu -- commissioner to. -- chu: what i found confusing is what you are funded. i